M/S. SFO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/41112/2018HC KeralaKLHC01095052201818 December 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition with a direction. The Court noted that the appeal was pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and that the assessee had filed an application under Section 220(6) before the Assistant Commissioner. The Standing Counsel for the revenue informed the Court that the Assistant Commissioner would consider the Section 220(6) application expeditiously. The Court explicitly stated that before the Assistant Commissioner considers the application, he will defer all coercive steps. The operative direction was that the writ petition stands disposed of with this understanding.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. SFO Technologies Private Limited, an assessee, had its assessment completed for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee claims to have filed a statutory appeal and an application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner apprehended coercive steps for recovery of tax dues before its appeal could be taken up. The respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kochi.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assistant Commissioner should defer coercive steps for recovery of tax dues pending the disposal of the assessee's application under Section 220(6) and the statutory appeal. Assessee's Contention: The assessee sought to prevent coercive recovery proceedings before its statutory appeal and application under Section 220(6) were considered. The assessee relied on the principle that coercive steps should be deferred during the pendency of such applications and appeals. Revenue's Contention: The Standing Counsel informed the Court that the appeal was pending before the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)). The counsel stated that the Assistant Commissioner would consider the petitioner's application under Section 220(6) expeditiously.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 220(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 WP(C).No. 41112 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: M/S. SFO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED PLOT NO. 37, COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE, KAKKANAD, COCHIN 682 037 REPRESENTED BY COMPANY SECRETARY K PADMANABHAN. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SHRI.GOKULRAJ L. SMT. ARYA ANIL SMT. NILOOFAR O. NIZAM SRI.SREEJITH R.NAIR RESPONDENT/S: 1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 2 (1),KOCHI 682018 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -II KOCHI 682 018 OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- W.P.(C). No. 41112 of 2018

JUDGMENT The petitioner, an assessee had its assessment completed for 201-15. Later the petitioner claims to have filed a statutory appeal, besides an application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act. Now it apprehends that before the appeal could be take up, the Assistant Commissioner will initiate coercive steps to recover the tax dues.

2.

In response to the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel, the learned Standing Counsel informs the Court that as the appeal is pending before the second respondent, the petitioner seems to have filed an application under Section 220(6) before the Assistant Commissioner. According to him, that authority will consider the petitioner's Ext.P3 application, expeditiously. So be it.

3.

Needless to observe that, before the Assistant Commissioner will considers the petitioner's Ext.P3 application,

-3- W.P.(C). No. 41112 of 2018 he will defer all coercive steps. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE das

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 DATED 31- 12-2016 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY THE APPEAL DATED 04-02-2017 FILED AND PENDING BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 220(6) FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

More judgments on Section 220(6)

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 220(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →